157 Cal. App. 2d 822 - Titus v. Lawndale School District’s Empirical Analysis
1958
Citation profile
27 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 27 later decisions — most recently December 1977 · most notably 55 Cal. 2d 224 - Lipman v. Brisbane Elementary School District (1961), 20 Cal. 3d 309 - Pasadena Unified School District v. Commission on Professional Competence (1977)
27 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on City of Pasadena v. Stimson · 41 Cal. 2d 546 - Board of Education v. Dresden Swan · 38 Cal. 2d 853 - Housing Authority v. City of Los Angeles · Kennedy v. Board of Education · 66 Cal. App. 157 - Goldsmith v. Board of Education of Sacramento City High School District
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 27 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““That this is a proper case for mandamus follows from a consideration of the apposite authorities. Volume 34, American Jurisprudence, section 203, page 974: ‘Since mandamus does not generally lie to determine mere contract rights, the writ will not be awarded to compel reinstatement of a schoolteacher who has been removed and whose relation to the school officers rests wholly in contract. But where the teacher by positive provision of law has a fixed tenure of office, or can be removed only in some prescribed manner, and where, consequently, the removal is not authorized, mandamus will issue, even though another teacher has been selected to fill the position. So, also, the remedy will lie to compel reinstatement of a teacher who has been removed in violation of statutory rights.’ The language just quoted fairly reflects California law. The leading cases are Kennedy v. Board of Education, 82 Cal. 483 [ 22 P. 1042 ]; Saxton v. Board of Education, 206 Cal. 758 [ 276 P. 998 ], and Holbrook v. Board of Education, supra, 37 Cal.2d 316 [ 231 P.2d 853 ].””
1 later decision quote this exact passage““The writ of mandamus may issue in this state 'to compel the admission of a party to the use and enjoyment of a right or office to which he is entitled, and from which he is unlawfully precluded.’ (Code Civ. Proc., § 1085.) ””
1 later decision quote this exact passage“‘ ‘ One of the commonest applications of mandamus is restoration of a school teacher to a position from which he or she has been wrongfully ousted. (See 23 Cal.Jur. § 100, p. 137; 32 Cal.Jur.2d § 23, p. 168.)””
1 later decision quote this exact passage
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.